It is more than justified to be collectively jubilant − or even ecstatic − about the recent addition of an entire prehistoric period to Malta’s history.

However, on closely reading the article ‘Hunter-gatherer sea voyages extended to remotest Mediterranean islands’ in the science journal Nature of April 9, a few pressing remarks and questions came to mind. This is by no means meant to diminish the thoroughness and technical depth of the research.

To begin with, it is widely considered a matter of scientific integrity and courtesy to clearly acknowledge the origins of a research project and its sources of inspiration. This leads us to the first question:

Why the Latnija?

The cover of the authors' book The First Maltese, published in 1992.

The omission of this crucial background information probably serves to obfuscate the actual (and only) source that could have led to the choice of this particular site. The researchers could have chosen one of the multitude of other caves, cavities, overhanging rock shelters or sinkholes present along the Maltese and Gozitan coasts or more inland sites.

In this case, the original source could have been nothing else than an extensive press release issued in December 1991 about our discovery, which included the first description of the Latnija as a site containing three prehistoric phases. This find was published in several local newspapers in both Maltese and English, such as the Times of Malta of December 28, 1991.

Our discovery was part of a project, supported by a fieldwork contract, aimed at mapping the Neolithic period of Marfa Ridge in order to confirm a connection between the east of Gozo and the north of Malta − what we by 1989 had already called the ‘Red Culture’. 

The cover of The First Maltese: How It All Began in Gozo, published in 2002.

From 1992 up to 2022, that is over 30 years, the Latnija featured in no less than five books of ours: The First Maltese: Origins, Character and Symbolism of the Għar Dalam Culture, 1992, p. 30, pp. 64-65; The Goddess of Malta; the Lady of the Waters and the Earth, 1992, 1997 (German edition), 2019 (extended edition, pp. 26,74); and last but not least, The First Maltese: How It All Began in Gozo, 2022, p. 105.

Every excuse to have overlooked all this literature lacks credibility and is subsequently null and void.

During the almost 40 years we have worked here, we did nothing than forcefully defend the Maltese and Gozitan prehistoric heritage, in books, articles, lectures, exhibitions and even (risky) actions to safeguard its precious remains.

What happened to the other cultures?

Of the remaining three prehistoric cultures present in the Latnija − although briefly touched upon in the accompanying interviews – there’s no mention in the actual Nature article itself. These three prehistoric cultures refer to an early form of the Għar Dalam culture, the Temple Period and the Borġ in-Nadur people.

One might wonder if the researchers really encountered concrete remains such as pottery in their layer nr. II, of which we solely learn that it contained “classical and prehistoric” remains without any other specification, description or illustration. Could it be that they simply ‘borrowed’ the name of the three prehistoric phases from our earlier work?

An artilce in the Times of Malta following a press release about the authors’ discovery of prehistoric remains in the Latnija, December 1991.

Because of the omission of the further prehistoric context, among which the direct Neolithic successors, the Latnija seems exclusively Mesolithic, which obviously serves the ‘scoop’, but provides a distorted picture.

It also perpetuates the outdated and simplistic bias that these people − and their Neolithic successors − were merely cave dwellers. For decades we have been debunking this myth in our relevant publications, as well as the other myths of the “accidental arrival on rafts” and “being very primitive”.

What could the wider context tell us?

Disappointingly, the study’s (no less than) 25 authors limited their research to a pit of just 5 x 5 metres. We read nothing about the remaining ca. 1,500 square metres of the Latnija, with its intriguing deposits and burials of the (Neolithic) first Maltese.

We also read nothing about the rest of Marfa Ridge, where these Mesolithic groups must have lived and moved about. We know that people of this period had seasonal dwelling places depending on the food available. And the Latnija could well have been a winter shelter.

Moreover, in 1991, at the eastern end of Marfa Ridge, we uncovered potential evidence of Mesolithic tool-making, including a 7cm chert spearhead.

Illustration of a 7cm chert spearhead found at the east point of Marfa Ridge, in November 1991. It was possibly a Mesolithic tool.

In total, we found 22 (1992) − and later 48 (2022) − early Neolithic sites and traces on both islands (before 1992, just five sites were ‘officially’ known). Many of these sites could plausibly represent a Mesolithic substrate. However, as researchers with a more culture-oriented archaeological perspective, we rely on the presence of pottery fragments, which carry specific cultural information, including symbolic meaning.

What about the many immigration waves?

The Nature authors give the impression of having established, for the first time, the possibility of two-way navigation between Sicily and Malta. We had already noted in 1992 that the first Neolithic settlers were highly capable of this (e.g. the Piano Vento, Sicily-taċ-Ċawla, Gozo connection).

In our 2022 publication, The First Maltese 2 (pp. 71-76), we elaborated a lot on this aspect, and also mentioned Mesolithic routes in the 10th and 9th millennium BC, so well before the very first arrival of settlers in Malta.

Illustration of an atypical dark grey potsherd, dating to the very early Neolithic period, that could point to possible Neolithisation at the Latnija site.

The Latnija researchers mention the Sicilian ‘Stentinello’ phase as the only early Neolithic pottery style. In The First Maltese 2, we described no less than six distinctive ceramic styles of the early Neolithic settlers in Gozo − three of these are dated earlier than Stentinello, and two later. No style from the Stentinello phase was found.

These six ceramic styles imply a multitude of immigration waves, from various locations, even as far as south Italy (pp. 75-99).

Why create a dating chaos again?

We have written a most-needed appendix about this recurring problem in our latest book, Malta’s Temple Culture Summarised in the Twin Ladies of the Xagħra Stone Circle, 2023 (awarded a grant by the Malta Book Fund).

In The First Maltese 1 (1992), we opted for 5,500BC as the most probable date of arrival of the earliest (Neolithic) immigrants, based on the archaeological material we discovered at taċ-Ċawla, Victoria, the previous year.

One year later, in 1993, during a press conference to save the site, one of us pushed this date further back to 5,800BC, based on comparative ceramic research, supported by secure dates from overseas, e.g. Piano Vento, Sicily, starting 6,200BC.

Much later, the Maltese-British Fragsus archaeologists, after numerous detours, reached the same conclusion – dating the event to 5,800BC – in the definitive timeline of their Temple Places, published in 2020.

However, we were astounded to read that the Nature team settled on the unlikely date of 5,400BC for the Neolithic arrival. This conveniently placed the event exactly one century after their final Mesolithic date of 5,500BC. In this way they could also conveniently construct a 1,000-year-long Mesolithic presence in the Latnija.

Description of the Latnija site in The First Maltese, 1992.

Meanwhile, we were strongly encouraged by the presence of ceramics from the ‘Archaic Horizon of the

Adriatic’, notably found near Qala in eastern Gozo, to push the arrival date of the first Neolithic settlers in Malta back to around 6,000BC. There is even evidence suggesting earlier Neolithisation in the area.

The Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the Latnija would have practically coexisted with the Neolithic farmers of Qala, living in close proximity − likely even within sight of each other − for a period spanning no less than 500 years. This makes no sense at all from a cultural anthropological point of view.

All of this clearly requires much more research, in which our books − and perhaps even ourselves − should eventually play a part. Could this lead to a fruitful discussion between the factions of hunter-gatherers and farmers?

Veronica Veen is an art historian/archaeologist and cultural anthropologist, and Adrian van der Blom is an art historian and archaeologist.